Once he realized that he wasn’t acting the same, he did not hunt alone, but became part of a unit with people who would tell him if he went too far. *As a note, this is what Soulless Sam did to a certain extent. And therefore Sam can not bear responsibility for a consciousness he had no control over, even when reunited with that consciousness. Sam’s soul could not provide whatever influence it would provide usually. It’s incredibly shaky ethically to assert that one consciousness be responsible for another, when there is no ability to assert control over the second. It’s the difference between a brain injury affecting your ability to function and having a murderous coping technique for an psychological injury. But is incredibly clear that this isn’t necessary for a demon to exist. They are perfectly aware of consequences as they relate to the personal, and in fact enjoy them. They feel entitled to their need to cause pain. Having a corrupted soul on the other hand does not seem to diminish the capacity for moral reasoning demons have been shown to have empathy, sympathy, and a capacity to reason morally. If the removal of the soul had been voluntary, there would be some culpability). You can ask that the soulless person not be in a position where they are a danger to themselves or others*, but the culpability is also diminished (which doesn’t mean gone of course. The ability to understand the consequences as they relate to the personal is diminished. Dean is culpable for the Mark’s presence on his body and his lack of knowledge about its affects and therefore bears some culpability on the consequences of that Mark.Īccording to the show, not having a soul means there is diminished capacity for moral reasoning, empathy, and sympathy.
Also, when it comes to should have known, willful ignorance is in the should have known category. Taking the Mark from a demon who was once human, and did not become a demon until after the Mark is good evidence that the Mark makes demons. While Dean willingly took the Mark, although I don’t think we can say he willingly died or knowingly became a demon, we can say that he should have known.
He is not culpable for the removal and therefore is not culpable for the consequences of the removal He did no action that could reasonably have led to the removal of his soul or any action where he should have known would led to the removal of his soul. Sam did not willingly or knowingly remove his soul. The difference between Soulless!Sam and Demon!Dean imo is threefold: Tonight I’ve seen some people comparing Soulless Sam to Demon Dean, whom I think have some important differences.
0 kommentar(er)
